Category: Student Posts

I thought last week’s class discussion was quite thought provoking. We brought up many interesting questions surrounding how to define an intellectual and their position in society. A great deal of attention was given to “decontextualized ideas.” When I originally read this I kind of glossed over it. After our discussion I realized that it is an important role that intellectuals devote their livelihood to. The decontextualized ideas that intellectuals are primarily focused on are true regardless of context and the situation. In my political theory class we discussed the difference between “we hold these truths to be self-evident” vs “these truths are self-evident.” This got me thinking about the decontextualized ideas from our class. I was thinking that even though the ideas are true regardless of context, could truths differ between societies. Thomas Jefferson specifically used the word “we”, which makes me wonder if intellectuals from different cultures discover the same truths. Can people from different cultures agree upon the same ideas? 

This leads me to our discussion on truth being a sacred object. I think that intellectuals of different cultures, but the same religion, would hold the sacred object to hold the same truth. These sacred objects are separate from and elevated the mundane. They are of singular importance and power. I thought that it was fascinating to think about truth in this way. Prior I thought that truth can be discovered and redefined. Although this is how intellectuals work, they give the truth more power than I have regarded the truth to have. 

I am interested to see how the Truth can be connected to the institutions that intellectuals designed, which is part of the focus of this week’s readings. Looking forward to the class discussion this week, as I found it interesting that the two readings conflicted with how intellectuals should rule. In the Ersatz Religion reading it is believed that an intellectual would not make for a good ruler as when creating their idealistic society they suppress an essential element of reality to construct this image. However, in thesis 11, intellectuals should make for good rulers. This is because Gouldner believes that in the New World those who govern should be those who possess superior competence, wisdom and science. Those who have these three characteristics are intellectuals themselves, thus making the argument that they should be the rulers.

In this week’s reading Intellectuals and the Powers, I was particularly interested in the functions and formations of intellectuals. It wasn’t necessarily surprising to me that most intellectuals have their formative years at prestigious universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, and the London School of Economics. Still, I was wondering if there would be any shift in the schools that produce “intellectuals”? I put that in quotation marks not because I do not think that they exist but rather because I am still trying to differentiate between them and scholars and academics. Shils talks about how intellectuals lay the groundwork for the rest of the academic world, but I have a question: Can anyone lay out what the world should base on, or is this solely reserved for intellectuals? Another part of the reading I was confused about was the integration of intellectuals in the corporate world. This might be due to my misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about Intellectuals as a whole. I was under the impression that intellectuals solely stayed in the world of knowledge and learning, is this not actually the case? 

Another part of the reading that I found interesting was the tie to religion. Mainly because of the deep history behind the two. This chapter has been looking deep into tradition and religious tradition is so ingrained into our society that it only makes sense that the intellectuals were formed and rooted in their religions. Not only did they look at it in the sense of advancement but they also critically looked at it and pushed back against religion which at the time formed a sense of isolation.

In the other reading for the week, in looking at the new class and the question posed, is the class unified by its common rules of discourse? The part of this reading that I found the most interesting was the answer to that question, which is the fact that this new class can go against the old class. Another part of this reading I found interesting and want to discuss more is the correlation that Gouldner makes between the new class and other groups such as women and Black people. This idea that people thought that these groups could not form a coherent political movement baffled me in a way, but at the same time wasn’t surprising. The denial of the new classes’ competence is in line with any new or minority group in a social-political sense. It is the sense of othering that hindered the progression of this group. Since the new class is not something as rooted in history as the original intellectual group they formed group solidarity or they did not speak to each other and that is interesting to me. I would assume that the group thinks mentality would be something more prominent in their mentality. Is this due to the competitive nature of the intellectual class? Or is it due to the egotistic human nature that is engrained into society as a whole?

In class, we described intellectuals as individuals who produce decontextualized ideas as described in the Coalition of the Mind Reading. They are decontextualized since they are related to what you are thinking about as they provide more information on the idea. 

In the Shils reading, using symbols created a sacred object that is connected to the past. I thought it was interesting that in order for the intellectuals to remain connected to the remote symbols they needed a way of communicating with the past, which is where religion comes into play. With religion also comes educational systems because the leaders need to understand their own history and regimes. A stable society needs symbols that therefore link the societal members together. Also out of this comes hierarchies, where there is a possibility that those under leadership could reject it. 

Intellectuals work together to solve everyday problems and hurdles. Out of this comes a cultural value system that becomes apparent in every generation that follows. 

The Shils reading actually reminded me a lot on the concept that I learned about in Riley’s theory class starting all the way back to hunter-gathers. Individuals in a society learn to overcome complex problems by working together, and later on if that problem comes up again they automatically know how to solve it. The stories of ancestors are passed down through generations and in turn those stories become the sacred objects/symbols that help society to function as a concrete whole and even teach lessons in life. 

I thought it was helpful that we went over the intellectual traditions in class, since I honestly had not heard of them until I did the reading. Out of those five traditions, the apocalyptic traditions stood out the most to me. The basic concept is that evil will be replaced by good to create a better world. This felt very religious to me, as mentioned in the chapter. I also believe that this tradition shows how ideas from the past are still relevant today or found to be integrated into the ideas of today in some way shape or form. 

The Gouldner reading on The New class as a Speech Community, had a critique on Shils discussion of alienative disposition of intellectuals. In hindsight, I probably should have read Shils first and then Gouldner in order to get a better understanding of what Shils was referring to. 

Gouldner’s critique ultimately is on how Shils’ view is on the old class and their traditions (pages 33 and 34) Gouldner also believes that Shil’s intellectual traditions are more for western intellectuals. I like how he picks apart Shil’s work and then adds the idea of “voluntarism” or self-groundedness regarding one internal aspect (chosen, indigenous, and natural) I guess what he is trying to say is that people have the ability to make decisions for themselves and do not need outside influences imposing ideas on them. This idea of self-groundedness, how intellectuals take pride in their own autonomy as Gouldner puts it, therefore becomes a central principle in modern intellectuals’ way of thinking.

Upon reading “The Intellectual and the Powers,” I was fascinated by Ed Shils’ description of ordinary life. He claims that ordinary people are not concerned with the sacred and it occurs in the present. To my understanding Shils claims that it is the task of intellectuals to look at the past and to be involved in the sacred. He goes on to describe a “spiritual wealth” in which intellectuals gain from. To do this they evaluate symbols and give meaning to past events. He further goes on to to say that members of society  “need to have at least intermittently some sense of the stability, coherence, and orderliness of their society; they need therefore a body of symbols, such as songs, histories, poems, biographies, constitutions, etc., which diffuses a sense of affinity among the members of the society” (Shils, 181). The meanings of these symbols are reinforced with ritual practices as we discussed during class. Intellectuals deem some aspects of life to be sacred. In class we defined sacredness as any  idea, thing, or symbol separated from mundane everyday life and elevated above those things. 

What I found interesting was how we apply sacredness to modern society. One example that we discussed was music and how we view The Beatles and The Rolling Stones as sacred. Furthermore, in sports we view certain players and athletes as sacred. For instance, Serena Williams recently played in the 2022 US Open and many celebrities attended because of their respect and admiration for her skill and athletic ability. We also talked about how sacredness originated in a religious context and how transcendental thinking gave new meaning to the term. Overall, I think it is important to understand how our understanding of the sacred has evolved throughout history and what it looks like in today’s society as well.

First, we talked about the idea of Culture of Critical Discourse (CCD) — using reason and rationality to get people to agree with one’s idea because it is sound, instead of using one’s authority or power to force people into believing. But, it is also weird to me, as I feel that there are some intellectuals, like the example Prof. Riley gave on Sartre, that are not really following the culture of critical discourse. For natural scientists, as claims must be backed with empirical evidence, there is little room for debate if the empirical evidence directly contradicts one’s claim. Prof. Riley then made it clear that people like poets, social activists, or professors can also be classified as intellectuals. Although it is defined that intellectuals are people that practice culture of critical discourse, I feel that in practice, sometimes it is not true. Often times, people are not using reason and rationality.

We then analyzed intellectuals in relation to power. While often perceived only interested in seeking the truth, intellectuals — as a social group — are just like any other social groups; they would seek to gain power and rise in the social hierarchy. I proposed the claim that there are many intellectuals, especially natural scientists, I would say are not trying to gain power. They are not trying to become the more powerful class and rule others. For example, I know many math professors that do research in their field because they simply love the beauty in whatever subject they are researching. Prof. Riley’s response to this was that: although these intellectuals are not trying to overpower other people in the society, they almost all hope to gain power in their own field – like through publishing papers or making groundbreaking discoveries.

In the reading, we also saw that intellectuals believe that they should “run” the society as they know best about things. It sounds sound, but in reality is flawed. Intellectuals are still human beings that could make mistakes just like everyone else. The fact that they actively try to practice the CCD does not mean that they are constantly doing that all the time. They might have different social roles and do different things for those responsibilities. They could also make mistakes at times. So we have a paradox or a dichotomy. Intellectuals claim to, or at least hope to, practice CCD, yet I feel that it is against our human nature. We are not purely rational beings.

Sacredness in the intellectuals. Just like religions, intellectuals have sacred practices and sacred artifacts as well. To them, the pursuit of the truth is their sacred practice; famous intellectuals are seen as sacred figures and have certain reverence and power among the intellectuals or even the general public.

I feel that religion is more like a general structure that could be applied to many other aspects of the social world. Though, typically, religion refers to Christianity, Catholicism, Muslim, and etc, but there are also just so many things in life that people just claim that they “believe it” yet are unable to back it up with any real world evidence.

Another important perspective stemming from our discussion this week was the idea that intellectuals as a group are not immune to corruption. If anything they are even more prone to the idea of “groupthink”, meaning they are more likely to seek out other people who have the same ideas as them and are easily influenced by those people. Many times people put an unrealistic spin on intellectuals in that they are supernatural humans that are exempt from all aspects of human nature which is not the case. If anything they are even more susceptible to influence by those with their mindset because of their egotism. As a result of their need to feel validated in their ideas and feelings they combine efforts and organize into institutions where they spread their own ideas.

This organization of intellectuals into institutions may be helpful but in the case of modern universities and the spread of “wokeism” as Professor Riley described it, it did the opposite. Intellectuals recognize their implicit power over others because of their extensive knowledge of all things in the world. That knowledge has the power to influence others who are not especially well-read on certain issues and take what they write or verbalize at face value because of their expertise. Why is it that they are not challenged? Or if they are challenged by other intellectuals who have an alternate view, why are those who oppose silenced? This is especially evident in modern society among those in health sciences regarding COVID-19 and politically regarding the disorder that our country has recently faced with BLM or the trans-gender crisis. If intellectuals hold the truth so sacred and value the “culture of critical discourse” as Gouldner describes in his book, why is there such little discourse even occurring?

After yesterday’s discussion of the origin of intellectuals, the idea of how they as a collective class are exceptionally susceptible to seek power really stuck with me. One important question that was brought up was is it reasonable to allow those that are within the intellectual class, supposedly the most intelligent individuals in a society, to rule or make up the political governing system of our society? I would like to address that question in this blog. In short, being intelligent is not the only indicator of a strong leader and one that should be making laws or rules. Often times the greatest leaders are not necessarily those that create “decontextualized” ideas or think of ideas without solicitation in seek of the truth. Great leaders are able to learn from past leaders and past experiences using compassion, confidence while having the best interest of the public in mind. Intellectuals do not necessarily always fit into that criteria.

As we discussed in class individual intellectuals seek power in some aspect, whether that be through their educated discipline or some other aspect of their lives but in general intellectuals aim to rise up in the ladder of status. This tendency to continuously gain a higher status by producing more sacred ideas or products is particularly unique to intellectuals and takes a certain type of individual, one with charisma and confidence. As a result, this may be a reason why the public tends to gravitate toward those individuals and believe what they have to say and how they gain power, whether that be political, informational or educational. Therefore, intellectuals individual or group are not always necessarily the greatest choice to lead but it is understandable as to why the public views them as credible and trustworthy.

As a Biology major I have to admit that I do not possess much previous knowledge on this subject. As I mentioned in class, my schedule is packed with biology labs so it is refreshing to have a seminar based course in which I am able to write and discuss my thoughts with others. I am also looking forward to hearing other people’s perspectives and their takes on the readings that we will tackle this semester. I think that listening to opposing viewpoints will help me better develop my own.

After reading the course syllabus I am excited to learn more about what makes up an intellectual. Specifically, I want to know more about the evolutionary history of intellectuals and how their identity has changed over time. I am looking forward to understanding how class and society have shaped the intellectual’s thought process as well. What stood out to me the most in the introduction was that intellectuals engage in critical thinking. I think that this is an important and necessary skill to be able to understand the social environment around us. Intellectuals do not only enhance their own knowledge but they also communicate this to the rest of society. Therefore, in order to understand intellectuals, one must also understand their social and historical backgrounds.

What stood out to me the most from Collins’ “Coalitions of the Mind,” was his description of “Truth” as a sacred object for intellectuals. My understanding of this passage was that intellectuals deem certain objects or passages to be sacred. When a product is given sacred status this means that it could be used in ritualistic practices. Intellectuals utilize these sacred objects in order to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the world.

In Molnar’s “The Emergence of the Intellectual,” he claims that there are indeed a variety of factors that have cultivated the identity of the intellectual. For instance he brings up religion, law, politics, and economics as shapers of intellectuals. Studying the human condition to me is fascinating because there are so many factors and events throughout time that affect it. Another concept that I found particularly interesting was the relationship between peace, unity, and prosperity. These factors are what Molnar describes to be understood by the best thinkers of society which are the intellectuals. I agree with Molnar and think that these are fundamental principles of society which must be analyzed with critical thinking skills in order to be fully understood. Furthermore, I found it refreshing that Molnar claims that is not one universal definition of an intellectual. This definition has evolved throughout time and taken many forms. To me, that is what makes learning about intellectuals so interesting. There is still much more to learn and research in this arguably relatively new field of study. As Professor Riley mentioned, many universities are resistant to teaching such material because they worry this material is provocative. Yet, I think it is necessary to study such information because intellectuals occupy a critical place in society and throughout history.

I feel that we didn’t talk much about this in class, but I think it is worth bringing up since it is closely related to both sociology and anthropology (which is one of my majors). In the reading religious institutions are said to be important in the understanding of the sociology of individuals such as the way humans think and feel emotions. Those interactions that those individuals have with one another in the religious institution are what shape their wholeness as group. There is a sit of so-called “ingredients” as presented in the Coalitions of the Mind chapter, which was that there need to be at least two people for the interaction ritual to be considered an interaction ritual. For some reason that made me think about what happens if there is only one person and would that make it more like “witchcraft” or sorcery? Since those individuals would be by themselves, instead of interacting with people who share a connection its more based on objects.  Symbols were also mentioned as a way to keep that connection when the group is not together. I just thought that whole section was interesting.

In the Emergence of the Intellectual, humans have goals spurred by ambitions and social systems and groups also start to form. New inventions would then help humans achieve those goals, but at the same time, classes are formed and we start to see groups that have power over other groups of individuals. In one of my other classes that I am also taking this semester, Marxism was brought up because its one of the causes of humans continuing to destroy the natural world and its resources for their own benefit, such as to make a profit. The chapter talks about Marxism and it seems that that way of thinking bro0ught abo0ut bad things for humanity like famine, war and poverty in the eighteenth century. On the other hand, it seems once religion came along and Christianity became popular, the so-called “ideal world” concepts of peace, prosperity and unity were lifted to a higher level than they ever were before. After even more time has gone by in history, it seems that individuals have a much stronger concept of what it means to be an intellectual and their function and purpose. Even so, going forward other important concepts come into play that continue to change group dynamics as a whole. Redistribution of power and applying scientific thinking to coming up with ways to solve problems. 

Overall both of these readings brought to light things that I had learned previously or had not had the opportunity to think about at all. I also think that this class (which will probably be my last sociology class at Bucknell) will be a good rounding out of all the sociology classes and anthro classes that I’ve taken at Bucknell. On the first day ive already made so many other connections between my classes and i can’t wait to see what other connections can be made throughout the semester. 

In thinking about the intellectuals as mentioned in class, I have never before thought of them as their social class. These three readings have helped me shift my mindset to see intellectuals as their class. But I think of them as a part of the bourgeois in a way. Not that all people of this high class have the same knowledge or drive for learning as the intellectuals or that all intellectuals are of the same monetary level as the bourgeoisie but rather that they both see themselves as higher up and more advanced than others. 

Their relationship as Molnar laid out advanced each other. The intellectuals power seeking mindset is blinded. By this, I mean that intellectuals would not see themselves as power-seeking or greedy but rather they would see themselves as motivated to learn and advance. In the time period in which Molnar wrote this, they would see more of a positive lens on what they do rather than a negative connotation. 

When looking at intellectuals’ work we do need to look at them through a slightly different lens through which they view themselves. It is essential to see the world as they do to truly understand their work and how they fit into the social world, not just the intellectual realm. But in order to be critical of their work and of them, one can not look at everything the way that they do because then one too will become blinded and only see through one lens. To answer the second part of the question posed on the blog, yes this is the same for other objects of study. There will be no advancement in the world or righting wrongs if everyone thinks the same. In order to be challenged people need to know why you think the way you do and then push back and ask questions. In this instance diversity of thought becomes the most important. If the group of intellectuals is fading out of existence then that means there is no evolution to them and they have not adapted to the ever-changing world. 

Something that I would like to discuss further in this course is why Humanistic intellectuals have become more alienated. Many groups feel as if they should be of a higher status than others and should have more power, and society feeds into that and allows them to do so. So my question is what makes these Humanistic intellectuals so different from the rest of the power-hungry? Is there a difference, or do we no longer value knowledge and look for charisma as a society? With these questions, I want to further understand the difference in which we weigh social groups and the reasoning behind it, especially if it is not due to social identifiers such as race/ ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Or are these reasons why this group of people has dwindled from our social world? Do they have anything in common besides their knowledge? Feel free to comment below or we can discuss it in class.